Texas Railroad History - Tower 2 - San Antonio

Crossing of the Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway and the San Antonio & Aransas Pass Railway

 


Above: This snippet from a larger track chart (Stuart Schroeder collection) has been annotated with a yellow circle to highlight the Tower 2 crossing on the south side of San Antonio. The tower structure is marked by the rectangle in the southeast quadrant of the crossing of the east/west double-track Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio (GH&SA) Railway and the north/south San Antonio & Aransas Pass (SA&AP) Railway. A connecting track in the southeast quadrant of the crossing connects the SA&AP main line with a siding off the south track of the GH&SA main line. The map is undated, but it is part of a larger series that was drawn in 1918 and edited in 1921 and 1922. This timeframe aligns with the completion of the San Antonio Belt & Terminal (SAB&T) Railway which was funded by the Missouri, Kansas & Texas (MK&T, "Katy") Railroad in 1917. The SAB&T was then leased by the MK&T for 99 years, hence the map shows MK&T tracks running east/west north of Tower 2. At far right, the MK&T tracks cross the GH&SA double-track at an acute angle over the San Antonio River. This crossing was managed by Tower 112 which opened in late 1919, sitting just off the right edge of the map. Despite Tower 2 standing for ~ 25 years from 1902, no photos of it have been found.

Tower 2 was located at a crossing of the San Antonio and Aransas Pass (SA&AP) Railway and the Galveston, Harrisburg and San Antonio (GH&SA) Railway in south San Antonio. It was authorized for operation by the Railroad Commission of Texas (RCT) as a 10-function/10-lever mechanical interlocker on October 9, 1902. It opened on the same day as Tower 3 in Flatonia which was also a crossing of the same two railroads. Both were owned by Southern Pacific (SP) at the time, and it's reasonable to assume that the two towers shared a common design and appearance. No photos of Tower 2 have been located, but Tower 3 is well-documented and still standing.

The GH&SA had been chartered as the Buffalo Bayou, Brazos and Colorado (BBB&C) Railway several years before the Civil War to build west from Harrisburg, downstream from Houston on Buffalo Bayou. Prior to the War, the BBB&C reached Alleyton across the Colorado River from Columbus. After the War, the BBB&C was declared bankrupt and eventually came under the ownership of Thomas Peirce (with the unusual 'ei' spelling of his last name), a wealthy Boston businessman, lawyer and landowner; he owned a large sugar cane plantation not far from Harrisburg near Arcola. Peirce had done legal work for the BBB&C before the War so he was familiar with the railroad. Peirce and his investors petitioned the Legislature to modify the BBB&C's charter to authorize building to San Antonio. An unusual provision in the revised charter allowed the railroad to connect with any Pacific railroad. The railroad's name was also revised; it would become the Galveston, Harrisburg and San Antonio Railway.

Left: As Peirce built west in 1874, he claimed the marketing identity "Sunset Route", which remains in common use today. This ad from the Galveston Daily News of March 3, 1877 shows the GH&SA arrival into San Antonio at 4:00 pm after a 10:00 am arrival at Marion. The odd note of "28 miles from Marion to San Antonio" gives away the secret: the final segment was by stage coach. Marion was a tiny settlement near the west bank of the Guadalupe River that happened to be the end of track for the GH&SA for several months in the fall of 1876 and the winter of 1877. In October, 1876, newspapers reported that a contract by Peirce to build a branch line from Marion to New Braunfels had been let, but no tracks were ever laid.

Right: The following day, March 4, 1877, the ad in the
Galveston Daily News changed to highlight "All Rail Route". Marion is no longer mentioned at all, and the arrival into San Antonio was 10:35 am. The departure from Houston was 25 minutes earlier at 8:45 pm.

Within a year of reaching San Antonio, Peirce and SP Chairman C. P. Huntington were discussing a potential partnership. SP was building east from California to Yuma, Arizona and Huntington had decided he would continue past Yuma all the way to El Paso. He had already obtained permission from the territorial governments of Arizona and New Mexico to do so. Huntington wanted to create a southern transcontinental route via El Paso and San Antonio that would also serve Gulf ports at Houston and New Orleans. This required building 800 miles across Texas, but SP did not have a Texas railroad charter. Getting one from the Legislature would be difficult, so Huntington's attention turned to the GH&SA. It had everything he needed, including the right to build wherever necessary within Texas to connect with any Pacific railroad. By the summer of 1880, a deal between Yoakum and Huntington was in place. SP agreed to provide all construction financing for the GH&SA and would send a survey crew to map the route. Construction teams from SP's Southern Development Co. worked east from El Paso beginning in June, 1881 while Peirce's own construction crews built west from San Antonio, both efforts conducted under the GH&SA's charter. After a bit more than a year and a half, the two construction crews met at the Pecos River on January 12, 1883 where Huntington and Peirce drove a Silver Spike signifying completion of a major portion of SP's southern transcontinental rail line. As SP trains began operating from California to Houston, SP leased the GH&SA for several years and then acquired it.

The other railroad at Tower 2 was the SA&AP, chartered in 1884 by Uriah Lott to build from San Antonio to Corpus Christi. It soon expanded into other areas of south and central Texas, reaching Houston in 1888 and Waco in 1891. In 1886, Lott hired a young man named Benjamin Franklin Yoakum, age 27, a native Texan who had gotten his start in railroading on a survey gang for the International & Great Northern (I&GN) Railroad. Yoakum then became a land promoter in Jay Gould's rail empire, the magnate who controlled the I&GN. Hired to be Chief Clerk, Yoakum quickly moved up to the position of Traffic Manager. His hard work was rewarded when he became the namesake of a new town founded by the SA&AP, Yoakum, Texas, which would host the SA&AP's maintenance shops.

Left: The June 1, 1887 edition of the San Antonio Daily Light carried this mention of the new town of Yoakum. It was on the SA&AP's line to Houston fifty miles northeast of Kenedy, the branch point off the San Antonio - Corpus Christi main line. The reference to "Waco tap" pertained to the construction of the branch to Waco that the SA&AP had initiated northward from Yoakum.

Right: The same edition of the
San Antonio Daily Light had this ad for the SA&AP providing the schedule for its "Mission Route."

The major financial backer of the SA&AP was Mifflin Kenedy, a former steamship captain who had become wealthy from a shipping company he operated along the Rio Grande and Gulf of Mexico. He was also a landowner and rancher in south Texas, including a partnership with Richard King of King Ranch fame. Kenedy had helped finance Lott's construction of the Corpus Christi, San Diego and Rio Grande Narrow Gauge Railroad between Corpus Christi and Laredo, which became known as the Texas Mexican Railway in 1881 (converted to standard gauge in 1902.) Yoakum advanced rapidly under Lott's tutelage as the SA&AP expanded aggressively with Kenedy's financing. By January, 1888, Yoakum was issuing news releases under the title General Manager. By the summer of 1890, Yoakum had yet another title with the SA&AP -- Receiver. The railroad was bankrupt.

Right: (Galveston Daily News, July 15, 1890) Labor strikes and rapid branch line construction overextended the SA&AP. A lawsuit filed by its Waco branch contractor on July 15, 1890 forced it into receivership. Within a few hours, Judge W. W. King had already named Yoakum as one of the two Receivers. The other was J. S. MacNamara of the I&GN. When Judge King ran for reelection in San Antonio in November,1890 there were editorials and letters to newspapers claiming that Yoakum was active "in securing the election of his man as judge."

   

Yoakum did not have an easy time as Receiver, though many issues were self-inflicted. The claim that he was raising funds to help Judge King's reelection turned out to be true (and Judge King did win his race.) The two Receivers had provided $21,000 to help Judge King's campaign, but Yoakum testified that the funds were reimbursed by Mifflin Kenedy.

A. C. Cooper, a former SA&AP auditor under indictment for embezzlement alleged that Yoakum had taken $6,500 from SA&AP's accounts for personal benefit. But Yoakum had been out of town on the date he supposedly signed the receipts offered up by Cooper's attorney as evidence of guilt. It was a ruse, a blackmail attempt to force Yoakum's help in getting the indictment dismissed. There were also claims that Yoakum was an investor in the company supplying stone for Galveston's new jetties, thus he was giving the company an unusually low price for the SA&AP to haul the stone to Galveston. Yoakum defended the price, claiming it had universal support among SA&AP management.

Judge King assigned Judge J. R. Fleming to act as Master in Chancery under the Court's authority. Judge Fleming was to evaluate all of the charges and review the SA&AP's financial transactions that had occurred during the receivership. On October 29, 1892, Judge Fleming released his report which confirmed that Yoakum had indeed been an investor in the jetty company. The report also affirmed that the SA&AP's books were good, finding no issue with any of Yoakum's transactions as Receiver. Judge King abruptly dismissed Yoakum as Receiver, but this was inconsequential. The receivership had effectively ended five months earlier when the bondholders' committee had agreed to pay all outstanding debts. Judge King had kept the receivership proceeding in place only because Judge Fleming needed to retain the legal authority to complete his investigation.

           Austin Weekly Statesman  left, June 2, 1892 and right, November 3, 1892

                              

Above: The Galveston Daily News of June 16, 1892 reported the effective (but not legal) end of the SA&AP's receivership.

Yoakum resigned his Receiver position shortly after the Reorganization Committee had effectively ended the receivership by agreeing to pay off all of the SA&AP's debts. The El Paso International Daily Times of July 9, 1892 reported that D. B. Robinson, the new President of the SA&AP, had "...issued an official order appointing B. F. Yoakum, ex-receiver, to the office of manager of the system." Yoakum had no remaining duties as Receiver, hence he had elected to resume his career as General Manager of the SA&AP. Judge King, however, had not dismissed the receivership (and wouldn't do so until November 10, 1892), so legally, Yoakum needed Judge King's permission to resign. Judge King chose instead to terminate Yoakum from his Receiver position upon receipt of Judge Fleming's report on October 29. The termination in lieu of resignation might have been a black mark against Yoakum, but it certainly had no effect on his career.

Speculation by the Galveston Daily News that Yoakum would "Probably Remain in an Important Position" with the SA&AP was true, but only for a few months. During the receivership, SP had begun acquiring SA&AP stock with the intent of taking it over when the receivership ended. In his reference tome on Texas railroading, A History of the Texas Railroads (1941, St. Clair Publishing), author S. G. Reed explains how SP chose to proceed...

"A plan was proposed by him [Mifflin Kenedy] whereby his interests were protected, the Southern Pacific securing the bulk of the stock and guaranteeing the interest on new bonds. This was approved by the Receivers and by the Court. It avoided reorganization and re-chartering. On June 16, 1892, the Receivership was terminated and the property turned over to the new owners."

As explained above, the receivership remained legally pending in Judge King's court so that Judge Fleming's legal authority to investigate the charges against Yoakum and others remained intact. Reed continues...

"The new owners did not undertake to operate the property as part of the Southern Pacific, but they selected as officers mostly Southern Pacific men. ... It is surprising that neither the Railroad Commission of Texas nor the Attorney General took cognizance of this control of the S. A. & A. P. by a parallel and competing line at the time."

The accepted theory was that RCT was more concerned with seeing that railroads were properly financed and functioning with good service. Railroad competition was less important, even though it was a requirement of the Texas Constitution. To avoid any controversy, Huntington was very careful in how he proceeded to effect full control of the SA&AP. Statements attributed to him implying that a purchase of the SA&AP was in work were quickly retracted.

SP could not buy the SA&AP outright without permission of the Legislature, which would oppose the idea. Instead, the Pacific Improvement Company (PIC) made the purchase. PIC was the holding company through which the Big Four of Transcontinental Railroad fame (Leland Stanford, Mark Hopkins, Charles Crocker and C. P. Huntington) owned Southern Pacific and various other assets, particularly real estate.

Right: Brownsville Daily Herald, February 21, 1893. The claim that "they have manufactured a new company" was inaccurate; PIC had existed since 1878.

The SA&AP was owned by PIC, but it was effectively run by SP for the next ten years. RCT, the Attorney General and the Legislature each lost interest in pursuing the matter any further when it was determined that due to PIC ownership, the SA&AP was legally independent of SP.

With SP in effective control of the SA&AP,  it was time for Yoakum to leave. His next stop was the Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe (GC&SF) Railway based in Galveston. The April 18, 1893 edition of the Galveston Daily News reported "Yesterday morning Mr. B. F. Yoakum assumed the position of general manager of the Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe. He was busy all day conferring with the heads of various departments." The GC&SF had been acquired in 1887 by the much larger Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway based in Chicago. Although Yoakum was a Vice President of the GC&SF, he was looking for a larger opportunity. When a promotion with Santa Fe to Chicago never materialized, Yoakum moved on in 1897, becoming Vice President and General Manager of the newly independent St. Louis and San Francisco ("Frisco") Railway based in St. Louis.

The Frisco had been controlled by Santa Fe, but both railroads had fallen into bankruptcy during the Panic of 1893. The Frisco emerged as a major Midwest railroad and a competitor of Santa Fe. Unlike Santa Fe, however, the Frisco lacked a direct route to the Gulf of Mexico. The Frisco was still consolidating its network in the Midwest and Plains states and had yet to penetrate as far south as Texas. Its network carried significant export commodities, but it had little choice but to hand them off to its competitors, mainly Santa Fe and the Katy, to reach Gulf ports. It's likely that Yoakum's experience in Texas railroading and his familiarity with the Port of Galveston from his time with the GC&SF made him an attractive candidate to take over as the operational head of the Frisco.

In 1900, Yoakum became President of the Frisco, and in 1903, Chairman of the Board of Directors. Yoakum recognized the benefit of close cooperation with the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway. It had a complementary network mostly north and west of the Frisco's, although Rock Island did have lines through Oklahoma into north Texas and the Texas Panhandle. Yoakum was named to the Rock Island Board of Directors as Chairman of the Executive Committee, effectively its CEO. Rock Island had built to Fort Worth in 1893, and in 1902, the Frisco reached Fort Worth via trackage rights on the St. Louis Southwestern ("Cotton Belt") from Carrollton, just north of Dallas. Yoakum then decided to take on SP by doing what the GC&SF had never done despite having its headquarters in Galveston -- build a coastal track network between New Orleans and the Lower Rio Grande Valley that would be centered in Houston. Yoakum called it the Gulf Coast Lines (GCL), a collection of railroads to be built or bought, each independently owned by St. Louis investors and managed collectively by Yoakum and his Frisco executives.

The Valley had booming agricultural production but it was not connected to the national rail network. SP had observed the same opportunity and decided that its SA&AP proxy should build to the Valley. In accordance with the agreement dating back to the SA&AP's emergence from receivership, SP would back the construction bonds issued by the SA&AP to raise funds to build to the Valley. Yoakum was rightfully concerned that SA&AP would reach the Valley before he did since it already had tracks at Alice, a little over 100 miles from Edinburg. Yoakum's nearest tracks were in Dallas, a result of the Rock Island extension from Fort Worth to Dallas in 1903. The SA&AP construction bonds were being sold and the work was advancing south from Alice. It reached Falfurrias on June 1, 1904, only 67 miles from the Valley. But by selling bonds backed by SP, SA&AP caught the attention of RCT, particularly because this was the first new construction by the SA&AP since its emergence from bankruptcy. It would be the last for a long time -- the SA&AP remained stopped at Falfurrias until 1926.

The reason for the work stoppage was a settlement between SP and RCT in lieu of a lawsuit by the Texas Attorney General. RCT asserted that SP had violated Texas' railroad competition laws by unlawfully acquiring SA&AP stock. It was no secret that SA&AP management was populated by "SP men" and it was public knowledge that C. P. Huntington, SP's Chairman back in 1893, was a 25% owner of PIC, the company that had bought controlling interest in the SA&AP. At some point, the stock held by PIC had been privately transferred to an individual acting on behalf of SP. The Commissioners had begun asking RCT's auditor whether there was any evidence of SP owning SA&AP stock. RCT's auditor had no evidence of such ownership, but he knew that SP would be required to provide a list of all of its stock holdings to the Kentucky Railroad Commission (KRC) because the holdings would figure into the computation of Kentucky's franchise tax bill to SP (Texas did not levy a franchise tax until 1907.) The reply from KRC showed SA&AP stock listed among SP's holdings. A public hearing was held by RCT on April 27, 1903 during which SP and SA&AP attorneys admitted that SP actually owned $4 million par value in SA&AP stock. They also agreed to consent to any RCT order resolving the ownership of the SA&AP so long as it did not require forfeiture of SA&AP's charter. On May 13, 1903, the Commissioners met privately to decide how to proceed, culminating with issuance of an order on July 3, 1903 having several requirements: 1) SA&AP was required to cancel and destroy $1.7 million in bonds that had been issued in violation of Texas' stocks and bonds law; 2) SA&AP was required to reduce its capital stock from $5 million to $1 million, canceling all of the stock owned by SP; and 3) the Attorney General was instructed to file a lawsuit through which a Court injunction could be obtained preventing SP from voting any of the stock it held in competing railroads in Texas. RCT subsequently allowed SA&AP bonds already sold to remain in force in exchange for SA&AP building a line from Alice to Brownsville. SP was obligated to continue backing those bonds. A year later, the SA&AP was able to defer its Brownsville obligation.
Left and Above: Brownsville Daily Herald, May 24, 1904

Notwithstanding the friendly nature of SA&AP's management toward SP, it was now independent. There was no market for any new bonds SA&AP might have issued without SP backing, so the construction had stopped at Falfurrias, 67 miles shy of the Valley. Meanwhile, Yoakum's newly chartered St. Louis, Brownsville and Mexico (SLB&M) Railway, the first of the GCL railroads, started construction at Robstown where materials could be obtained through the port of Corpus Christi via the Texas Mexican Railway. From there he built south to Harlingen and Brownsville in the Rio Grande Valley (reached in 1904) and north to Algoa (reached in 1906.) At Algoa, a Santa Fe connection into Houston was negotiated, effectively giving Yoakum control of the lucrative Valley traffic. Yoakum's victory was a direct result of RCT's investigation into SP and SA&AP. That the probe happened ten years after the SA&AP had emerged from receivership (with the blessing of Receiver Yoakum!) seemed very suspicious; all fingers pointed to Yoakum's close friendships with the Commissioners. Yet, there was no question that SP was guilty of taking possession of SA&AP stock.

E. H. Harriman had become Chairman of SP's Board in 1901 and he was livid with the outcome. Harriman blamed Yoakum, yet he was simultaneously negotiating a contract with Yoakum that would change the landscape of Texas railroading forever ... but only if it gained the approval of RCT. Yoakum had been threatening to have Rock Island build its own line from Dallas south to Houston and Galveston to connect his north Texas railroads with his GCL railroads. Rock Island's new Texas charter authorized such construction, and the first segment, Fort Worth to Dallas, was being built in 1903. Fearing the loss of substantial Rock Island and Frisco traffic that Yoakum had been handing over in Fort Worth, Harriman was ready to deal. In the agreement, Harriman granted Yoakum's railroads full rights to operate over four SP railroads in east and north Texas in exchange for SP gaining the exclusive right to carry all of Yoakum's traffic between north Texas and the Texas coast. The contract was submitted to RCT on May 15, 1903, only two days after RCT had decided internally how it would proceed against SP for unlawful ownership of SA&AP stock. This was not good timing!

When the proposed contract was rejected by RCT, Yoakum proceeded with plans to build his own rail line to the coast. Rather than have Rock Island build it as authorized by its charter, Yoakum enlisted the help of Edwin Hawley, the principal financier of the Colorado & Southern (C&S) Railroad where Yoakum was a member of the Board of Directors. Having Hawley as a partner added financial heft to Yoakum's plan and also mitigated any concerns RCT might have had regarding Yoakum's oversized influence in Texas railroading. Yoakum had many plans and projects in work and he needed a friendly RCT to bless them. C&S proceeded to purchase the Trinity & Brazos Valley (T&BV) Railroad in August, 1905 and then sold a half interest to Rock Island. Yoakum's plan was to modify the T&BV charter to authorize construction of a low grade / low curve Dallas - Houston line on a survey that Rock Island had conducted. With the charter modification completed, Yoakum started at the T&BV's eastern terminus in Mexia (only a few miles from his birthplace in Tehuacana) and built east to Brewer (which he renamed Teague, his mother's maiden name.) Yoakum then built a north/south line through Teague between Houston and Waxahachie, where he obtained Katy trackage rights into Dallas; the line opened in 1907. Yoakum retired from the railroad business several years later, having left a lasting impact on Texas railroading. The T&BV line he built between Dallas and Houston is a major route today for Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF).


A 1901 state law granted RCT authorization to manage railroad crossings in Texas, and specifically the introduction of interlocker technology already in use in other states. On June 5, 1902, RCT issued Circular No. 1597 ordering grade crossing safety upgrades at two dozen rail junctions to be completed (with RCT inspection) by June 30, 1903. RCT elected to number all interlocked crossings in Texas, with the first being Tower 1 at Bowie, authorized for operation on April 17, 1902 (before the order was issued!) Towers 2 and 3 followed; both were GH&SA / SA&AP crossings and both were commissioned to operate on October 9, 1902.

Left
:
This index to the 1912 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of San Antonio has been annotated to highlight the GH&SA (orange) and SA&AP (red/purple) railroad crossing at Tower 2 in south San Antonio, and to illustrate changes that occurred in subsequent years. The biggest change was the elimination of the crossing in the mid 1920s. This was a direct result of SP acquiring the SA&AP in 1925, although the precise date the track was removed (purple) is undetermined. Tower 2 was officially closed on September 24, 1925 and its remaining functions were transferred to Tower 112.

The SAB&T (green) was constructed c.1917, and according to a 1915 track chart, SA&AP's diagonal exchange track with the GH&SA preceded the SAB&T. A photo from the 1930s shows two tracks (green/red dashes) where the SA&AP connected to the GH&SA and the Katy crossed the GH&SA. It seems likely (but remains undetermined) that this was the case when the SAB&T was built.

To the south, service was retained on the SA&AP main line via the connecting track (blue) in the southeast quadrant of the Tower 2 crossing. This track existed by 1918 with a connection to a GH&SA siding, and was later connected directly to the south GH&SA main track. Detailed Sanborn maps from 1912 show that the SA&AP had a yard and roundhouse immediately south of Tower 2. The fate of the tower structure has not been determined, but it was likely razed soon after it was closed.




Right: This 1915 track chart from the Katy Railroad's Office of the Chief Engineer (courtesy Ed Chambers) has been annotated to show the location of Tower 2 and to identify the depots. The map shows that the diagonal connection between the SA&AP and the GH&SA preceded the construction of the SAB&T. It also does not show the connecting track in the southeast quadrant of Tower 2. South of Tower 2, the SA&AP roundhouse and turntable are shown, as is a water tank. At the time of this drawing, Tower 2 was the only interlocking tower in San Antonio, a surprising observation given that main lines of four significant railroads were operating through the city.
 
Above: The SA&AP passenger depot (Carl Codney collection) stood at the corner of S. Alamo and S. Flores streets. It was no longer used as a depot after 1925 and it was razed in 1939.

As the Tower 2 crossing had existed since 1884, it preceded the 1901 interlocker law and thus, by RCT regulation, the capital expenses for the tower and interlocking plant were to be split evenly between the railroads. Recurring costs for operation and maintenance were split based on the percentage of the interlocker's functions directly attributable to each railroad. Tower 2 only had ten functions, two less than the typical minimum crossing which would normally consist of a distant signal, home signal and derail in each of the four directions. The Katy's establishment of the SAB&T in 1917 for switching services in San Antonio included tracks in the vicinity of Tower 2. Interlocker documentation for Tower 2 obtained from SP by Carl Codney provides considerable detail about the evolution of Tower 2 and the impact the SAB&T had on the tower's responsibilities. SP used an internal "Drawing D-205" form titled Statement Showing Levers, Functions and Division of Expense at Interlocking Plant as a way of summarizing basic information about each of the interlocking towers at which SP had track ownership. Two such forms are in Carl's collection for Tower 2. The drawings show that the SA&AP line had fixed distant signals in both directions; there were no controls for fixed signs hence they did not impact the interlocker functions. The signs warned trains approaching Tower 2 to operate at restricted speed with the expectation of coming to a complete stop when the home signals came within view. Presumably all SA&AP trains were stopping at its yard immediately south of Tower 2 (or transiting the yard very slowly), hence all of them traveled at restricted speed when approaching the diamond, making fixed signs adequate replacements for distant signals.

Below: These two D-205 drawings produced by SP for Tower 2 (Carl Codney collection) were originally dated October 9, 1902 (left) and September 1, 1917 (right). The 1902 drawing conveys the original arrangement for Tower 2 and was amended by hand many times over the years. It shows the original expense sharing was 54.5% GH&SA, 45.5% SA&AP, but these values are somewhat problematic because they do not reflect ratios that can easily be derived with a small number of functions. It may have reflected a negotiated adjustment for some unknown reason (or perhaps it was simply a math error.) The drawing shows that the interlocker originally had twelve functions which included distant signals in each direction on the SA&AP. By the time the interlocker was placed in service, those signals had been eliminated and are noted as "NB Distant Signal, Fixed" and "SB Distant Signal, Fixed". This was presumably a late decision to eliminate two signals that were not actually needed, reducing the function count to 10 as reported by RCT in the interlocker summary table it published on December 31, 1903.

At the bottom of the 1902 drawing, the GH&SA is identified as responsible for tower maintenance, but the SA&AP is listed as responsible for tower operations. Unlike for cabin interlockers where it was not unusual for maintenance and operations to be handled by different railroads (e.g. Tower 145, Tower 151), this split was unusual for a manned tower -- such towers were almost always maintained and operated by the same railroad. In this case, it was effectively the same railroad because the SA&AP had been presumed to be under SP control for the previous ten years (and as RCT found out in 1903, it actually was!) A notation on the drawing shows that the plan was revised on April 30, 1907 but this may have reflected an "as installed" update to the detailed documentation because it did not appear to affect the interlocker function allocations. Another notation dated June 5, 1917 states that the lever distribution was revised to "handle GH&SA double track."

Shortly thereafter, the 1917 drawing was generated. It accounted for changes incorporated for the SAB&T tracks, producing an expense sharing of 52.63% GH&SA, 21.05% SA&AP and 26.32% SAB&T. It has a typewritten notation stating that the drawing was updated January 26, 1920 to reflect the configuration that was... "Effective December 30, 1919 on which date the distant sigs. were placed in operation, coincident with placing River Crossing Interlocker in service." The "River Crossing Interlocker" was Tower 112 which was commissioned for operation on that date 0.6 miles east of Tower 2. The only other notation is handwritten... "Placed out of service Sept. 24, 1925 account taking over the S.A.&A.P. Ry."  (
Click each image to see the full drawing.)
    


Above Left: This photo of Tower 112, the "River Crossing Interlocker", was taken by John W. Barriger III from the rear platform of his business car sometime in the 1930s. Barriger's view is east-southeast along the SAB&T tracks with his camera turned slightly to the left as his Katy train has just crossed the San Antonio River and the GH&SA double track. In the foreground, the switch at left allows westbound trains to depart the SP (ex-GH&SA) north track and proceed to the northbound SP (ex-SA&AP) route to Kerrville.

Above Right: This is another snippet from the larger 1918 map (Stuart Schroeder collection) from which the image at the top of the page was extracted. The yellow arrow indicates Barriger's view east-southeast along the Katy tracks. The pink oval shows the location of the switch to Barriger's left, but the map does not show two tracks. Instead, it shows a switch off the SAB&T that leads to the diagonal track. Of course, Barriger's photo was taken roughly twenty years after the map was drawn, so the original track topology may have differed. Between the SAB&T switch (red circle) and the SA&AP switch (green circle), the SA&AP is shown having two "yard tracks" (blue oval). The other interior siding track faintly shows "MK&T" and the track below it shows "ditto" marks. The presence of two small arrows at either end of "SA&AP Tracks" confirms SA&AP ownership of what was effectively the main track of this connector, at least to the SAB&T switch. The track topology has changed considerably in this area, and the separate Katy bridge over the river (visible in Barriger's photo) no longer exists.

When the SAB&T was built and the GH&SA double tracked, both c.1917, the SA&AP main line quickly evolved to have a total of three crossing diamonds whereas originally there had been only one. The RCT annual report produced at the end of 1923 began listing Tower 2 with 19 functions, accounting for the additional signals and derails required. Carl Codney's 1917 SP drawing above lists 19 functions, so there presumably was a delay in reporting the correct information to RCT. Although Tower 2 was closed in September, 1925, the closure was not listed in RCT's annual interlocker report until the end of 1926.

In the Transportation Act of 1920, Congress directed the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to promote and plan consolidation of U.S. railroads into a limited number of "systems". The ICC responded by hiring economist William Z. Ripley to develop a plan. The so-called "Ripley Plan" proposed that SP head one of these systems and that the SA&AP become part of it. Although the Ripley Plan was never formally implemented, the authority of the ICC to regulate railroads granted by the Act overrode the power of state railroad commissions. On December 6, 1924, SP filed an application with the ICC for authorization to obtain control of the SA&AP. The State of Texas opposed the move, but was overruled by the ICC, which granted SP's application. In March, 1925, the SA&AP was re-acquired by SP and leased to the GH&SA. As noted above, Tower 2 was then closed in September and its remaining controls were transferred to Tower 112. SP eventually completed construction of the SA&AP line from Falfurrias into the Valley, reaching McAllen in 1927. This ended SLB&M's two-decade control of Valley traffic, but by then, it was owned by the much larger Missouri Pacific (MP) system.

Left: This 2005 Google Earth satellite image has been annotated to show the evolution of track topology in the vicinity of the Tower 2 crossing. Through 1925, the tower (red rectangle) sat in the southeast quadrant of the crossing of the GH&SA (orange arrows) and the SA&AP (yellow arrows and dashes.) The connector (red arrows) between the GH&SA and the northern route of the SA&AP existed at least by 1915. There were yard tracks here (aerial imagery from 1955 shows about a dozen) but the number likely varied over time as industries came and went along the west bank of the San Antonio River. A strand of railcars sits on a short industry spur that appears to have been part of the original SA&AP main line (yellow arrow above the yellow dashes.)

The SA&AP northern route opened to Kerrville in 1887. SP abandoned the last 49 miles into Kerrville in 1970; the new end-of-track was Camp Stanley. SP was merged into Union Pacific (UP) in 1996, and UP abandoned 3.5 miles of track in 2000 back to Leon Springs. The line was then cut back to the Beckmann Quarry -- from which Yoakum had shipped stone for Galveston's jetties -- where the track now ends 17 miles north of UP's main line. The Quarry is served by Alamo Gulf Coast Railroad which interchanges with UP.

To the south, the SA&AP built to Corpus Christi in the mid-1880s. In the 1993-94 timeframe, SP abandoned the former SA&AP tracks between Elmendorf and Sinton, constituting a substantial majority of the original main line. UP retains service to Mission Rail Park near Elmendorf, approximately 16 rail-miles south of the former Tower 2 crossing. The switch (pink arrow) for the connecting track (blue arrows) between the main line and the route south to Elmendorf is much farther east than might be expected from the imagery, probably a result of switching onto a GH&SA siding -- not the main line -- at the time the connector was built. When the Tower 2 crossing was removed (yellow dashes), the connector became part of the main line to the south.

The Katy was acquired and merged into MP in 1988; by that time, MP was already a subsidiary of UP. The SAB&T tracks (green dashes) that passed near the Tower 2 crossing were abandoned shortly thereafter.


Above Left: In this view to the east along the UP tracks from Probandt St., Tower 2 sat approximately where the trailer is located to the right of the tracks. Above Right: This is a 2023 Google Earth satellite view of the same area. The tower would have been trackside near the center of the image in the gap between the trees. UP's grade crossing of Probandt St. is at far left. Below Left: This Google Street View from April, 2022 looks west from Probandt St. The UP tracks are at left and the paved trail sits on the former SAB&T right-of-way (and is relatively new; it is not paved in a 2021 Street View.) The site of the former SAB&T / SA&AP crossing diamond is about 70 yards behind the camera. Below Right: The April, 2022 Street View from Lone Star Blvd. shows the track southeast of the former Tower 2 diamond approaching the south track of UP's main line. In the opposite direction, this track is the former SA&AP line south to Elmendorf.
 

 
Revised: 2/21/2024 JGK  Contact the Texas Interlocking Towers Page.